The Department of Education is inviting people to comment on a series of changes it plans to make to its student-loan relief programs.

Although much of it comes as welcome news, one of the ED’s modifications is troubling. But first, a sampling of the good stuff.

The revised Pay As You Earn plan (REPAYE) tackles the problem of so-called negative amortization. It limits the amount of unpaid interest that can been added to the loan balance when the new monthly payment that’s calculated under one of the department’s various income-contingent plans turns out to be less than the interest due.

The ED also says it will soon address another sticky matter that has plagued relief-seekers: recertification. Currently, income-contingent plan participants must annually requalify for assistance by submitting copies of their prior-year tax returns and sometimes other documentation. The department announced it is laying the groundwork for borrowers to authorize the IRS to automatically share their returns with the agency when they are filed.

As for the roughly $300 billion dollars’ worth of loans that remain unpaid under the discontinued Federal Family Education Loan program, the ED is moving to ensure that military service personnel are more efficiently identified so they will receive their entitled accommodations. Other troubled borrowers are to be provided with the proper level of financial and educational support as well.

The department’s income-contingent repayment plans have thus far used aggregate household income (AGI, per the IRS filings) as a starting point for determining the extent to which financial hardship exists and the basis for calculating an “affordable” monthly payment amount as a result. The ED’s worry, however, has to do with the potential for married couples to game the system by filing separate tax returns. So it will now require that incomes for both spouses be reported for these purposes.

I admit I hadn’t focused on the notion of “household income” until I read this change. Now I have mixed feelings about it.

Get Your Free Credit Score & Monitoring

Suppose a couple decides to tie the knot. Also suppose one half of the couple earns $50,000 per year and has a $20,000 car loan; the other half makes $30,000, has $5,000 in credit card debt, a $10,000 car loan and $25,000 in student loans—all in arrears.

The second half of the couple’s lenders would love to add the first half to all the debt currently on the books because of his or her relatively light debt-load. That can’t be done though, even after the couple marries because the first spouse wasn’t a party to the loans undertaken by the second. The only way for a lender to gain an added obligor is by explicit consent.

Clearly, the methodology the ED has in place and the modification it plans to implement runs contrary to that. (And lest you think the government has the market cornered on stealthy ways of offsetting risk, consider how some private lenders require loan co-signers, whose obligations they are loath to release later on.)

Even more troubling is the fundamental problem with using aggregate household income in the first place: It fails to take into consideration the possibility (if not, likelihood) that both spouses are already tapped out.

Given the rapidly deteriorating payment performance on this second-largest form of consumer debt in the U.S., there is no question that relief is needed—if only to avoid additionally burdening taxpayers who will have to make good on the government’s loan guarantees.

And while it would make so much more sense to bite the bullet and refinance every single dollar of these loans across the board, I have to question the ethics of punishing two people for the sins that may only have been committed by one.

This story is an Op/Ed contribution to Credit.com and does not necessarily represent the views of the company or its partners.

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

dmiller64152

I will not marry because of my student loans. My payment would go up, and he would be married to my debt.

MitchellDWeiss

If you’re currently in one of the government’s income-contingent relief programs, perhaps yes. If not, you’re good to go.

dmiller64152

I am in one of those programs. I think it’s important to note that people aren’t just putting off buying houses and starting businesses. I’m not a young woman. I’ve been paying on my loans for 20+ years without seeing the balance decline. I have no business, I own no home, and I will not take a husband.

Truthseeker

Actually Mitchell, anyone in any of the current program will probably not be impacted by the new MFS regulation UNLESS they enroll in REPAYE and actually change their current program. You folks really should do more research aside from a Google search when discussing a topic.

The offers that appear on Credit.com’s website are from companies from which Credit.com receives compensation. This compensation may influence the selection, appearance, and order of appearance of the offers listed on the website. However, this compensation also facilitates the provision by Credit.com of certain services to you at no charge. The website does not include all financial services companies or all of their available product and service offerings.

Editorial content is not provided by any issuer. Any opinions, analyses, reviews, or recommendations expressed here are those of the author's alone, and have not been reviewed, approved, or otherwise endorsed by any issuer.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.